Spiritual Portal

Directing a force estimated to be 100,000 strong from the Kremlin, Putin ordered coordinated attacks by carpet-bombing Chechen cities followed by a massive ground invasion. The invasion inflicted heavy casualties against Chechen soldiers and civilians alike. Not only were over 100,000 Chechens displaced from their homes but tens of thousands of Chechen soldiers and civilians were reportedly killed during the first months of the war. By mid-October, Russian forces were on the outskirts of Grozny. By early December, Russian forces fully blockaded the capital. Fearing widespread destruction, Russian general Anatoly Kvashnin called for an evacuation of the city. When Chechen forces refused, they were bombarded upon. On Christmas Eve 1999, the siege of Grozny began. The constant bombings and artillery raids turned the city into ash. After two months of fighting where the capital succumbed to brutal urban warfare, Putin’s military had slowly but methodically captured the Chechen capital. However, this was at a devastating cost to the city. In 2003, four years after the battle for Grozny, the United Nations still deemed the city as “the most destroyed city on Earth.”
President Putin’s War     

Ironically, Putin’s political successes coincided with his military achievements. A week after the assault on Grozny began, President Boris Yeltsin shockingly resigned from his office on December 31, 1999. According to the Russian Constitution, the prime minister takes his place if the president steps down. After being prime minister for less than six months, Vladimir Putin became President of the Russian Federation. Putin’s popularity continued to rise after he became president, in part because he implemented heavy censoring of independent journalism and threatened any dissidents that portrayed his anti-terrorist campaign in Chechnya negatively.

https://www.historyonthenet.com/putins-first-invasion-the-1999-invasion-of-chechnya

https://youtu.be/oifqp1bJp8Y

https://youtu.be/O5OEOf8BhdU

The great American political philosopher James Burnham in his book The Machiavellians (written during the Second World War) emphasized the importance of political opposition to the cause of freedom.  "It is only when there are several different major social forces, not wholly subordinated to any one social force," he wrote, "that there can be any assurance of liberty, since only then is there the mutual check and balance that is able to chain power."  Burnham warned against relying on any single leader or group of leaders to preserve freedom.  "There is no one force, no group, and no class that is the preserver of liberty," he explained.  "Liberty is preserved by those who are against the existing chief power."  "Not unity but difference, not the modern state but whatever is able to maintain itself against the state, not leaders but the unyielding opponents of leaders, not conformity with official opinion but persisting criticism," Burnham continued, "are the defenses of freedom."



👍

Thanks Kelly we want to know what we are supporting! In the other hand Tucker is very wrong about one thing… United States is far from being the one country where freedoms still exists.

Also listened to your second video. (High impact flix) Both of them were informative and helpful to understanding the full picture in this war we are supporting.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/03/zelensky_suspends_media_and_opposition_parties.html

Western media and commentators, and many Western political leaders, have portrayed the Russia-Ukraine War as an existential conflict between autocracy and democracy — as Vladimir Putin against the "free world."  We are repeatedly told by David Frum, Max Boot, Bill Kristol, and the crowd at MSNBC that our failure to defend Ukraine is a failure to defend "democracy."  Those war hawks will undoubtedly defend Zelensky's moves as necessary steps to ensure the survival of an independent Ukraine.  And they may indeed be necessary in wartime.  Political opposition in wartime can hamper a nation's war effort.  That is why Putin, for example, is cracking down on protesters within Russia (which his government does as a matter of course, war or no war).  That is why American presidents like Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt cracked down on dissent within the United States during the wars they presided over.

Fortunately for us, the United States had deep democratic roots (independent courts, separation of powers, federalism, etc.) that sustained our democracy after the exigencies of war faded.  Ukraine's democratic roots, however, are thin.  If Zelensky's government survives this war, will the war measures be lifted?  Will the opposition political parties be free to oppose Zelensky's government?  Will a free press be permitted to criticize government policies?

It may be in America's strategic interest to continue aiding Zelensky's government and armed forces in the current war, but we would be well advised to refrain from portraying the war as an existential struggle between autocracy and democracy and applauding Zelensky's government as a champion of freedom.